How You can Help Yourself to Taste Success!

[Tim]

Did we ever establish if the count is of LC members (as in me, Red Dragon, Alexander) or of people from our past censuses? If it's ancestors, I think I may account for about 50 of them, as I got a (newly-discovered) second cousin once removed to join, and 'gave' her those to start her off.

I think the data comes from the Lost Cousins site, so that's all members of Lost Cousins and not just that subset which are members of this forum.
Good result getting your cousin to join, I have also made contact with a lost cousin from New Zealand, I've sent her a request (doesn't it take ages to select all the related family?) and she says she'll join at the weekend.

 

[Liberty]

... (doesn't it take ages to select all the related family?) ...

Doesn't it just? I had to keep hopping back and forth between the list and my tree to see who was related to her, and even so I overlooked one of our direct ancestors!

 

[Tim]

Doesn't it just? I had to keep hopping back and forth between the list and my tree to see who was related to her, and even so I overlooked one of our direct ancestors!

Its very easy to miss people, but the ones we miss will give them the practice they need for entering ancestors at LC

 

[Red Dragon]

Hi Everyone!

Here's a weekly update on how well people have been doing over at LostCousins.

• 45 new members joined the LostCousins site
• 3,178 new entries have been added and
• 499 relatives have been matched.

Only 1 figure went up this week, and that's right, it was new matches! New matches has increased every week of this year so far, so well done everybody, and well done to the people that haven't joined the forum yet. It's probably safe to assume that this is where most of the new matches are happening.

Here's a graph showing the activity over at the Lost Cousins site.

 

[Red Dragon]

Hi Everyone!

Here's a weekly update on how well people have been doing over at LostCousins.

• 57 new members joined the LostCousins site
• 4,342 new entries have been added and
• 151 relatives have been matched.

2 figures up this week, but unfortunately, the consecutive run of relatives matched has come to an end.

But its not all bad new news, new members and new entries are both up, which will generate new matches for the following weeks as they continue to add their ancestors.

Here's a graph showing the activity over at the Lost Cousins site.

 

[Liberty]

Hi Everyone!

2 figures up this week, but unfortunately, the consecutive run of relatives matched has come to an end.


But its not all bad new news, new members and new entries are both up, which will generate new matches for the following weeks as they continue to add their ancestors.

Maybe Peter's piece in the NL about the person with 6 entries will prompt people to get some ancestors entered.

 

[Bryman]

Maybe Peter's piece in the NL about the person with 6 entries will prompt people to get some ancestors entered.

I am hopeful but doubtful at the same time. I have just sent a referral to someone I knew had done quite a bit of research and who turns out to be 3rd cousin of my wife and he tells me that he subscribes to Peter's newsletter but has not entered ANY census references. He prefers to use Ancestry Hints. I am not familiar with them so cannot comment but am disappointed.

 

[emjay]

I am hopeful but doubtful at the same time. I have just sent a referral to someone I knew had done quite a bit of research and who turns out to be 3rd cousin of my wife and he tells me that he subscribes to Peter's newsletter but has not entered ANY census references. He prefers to use Ancestry Hints. I am not familiar with them so cannot comment but am disappointed.

Not always known for their accuracy although can be useful sometimes.

 

[Liberty]

Not always known for their accuracy although can be useful sometimes.

Ancestry hints run the risk (discussed elsewhere) of linking you up with a record for someone of a similar name and age who isn't your relative. I love following them up, but discard a significant proportion. Shared cousins on LC will only get a match if both descendants feel that the ancestors listed are related to them, which probably means that spouse/child/parent tallies with earlier or later censuses, etc.
And OF COURSE it's not a case of either Ancestry or Lost Cousins -why do people think they have to cleave to one and forsake all other when we're talking about family history sources?

 

[Liberty]

I am hopeful but doubtful at the same time. I have just sent a referral to someone I knew had done quite a bit of research and who turns out to be 3rd cousin of my wife and he tells me that he subscribes to Peter's newsletter but has not entered ANY census references. He prefers to use Ancestry Hints. I am not familiar with them so cannot comment but am disappointed.

Disappointing certainly, and/but also reflects a certain, uh, self absorption in their research. While I have lots of gaps and mysteries in my tree, it is a fairly sturdy thing, with good coverage. Nowadays I get a lot of pleasure from contacting people with trees on Ancestry and offering to provide information. Sometimes they don't reply, which is fair enough, but often they are very pleased to push their ancestry back a generation or 2, or to be told that the child called Lily E A in 1871 is the same as the girl Ethel in 1881, and tidy up their records. Someone who only takes from Ancestry hints, (or Hot Matches on Genes Reunited) seems to be missing out on this.
I may wrong your wife's cousin, and what he means is that he relied on the links to other trees that Ancestry offers, and thus makes contact with others who are building trees. In which case, see my response to Emjay's comment - why limit yourself to those with trees on Ancestry? It may be a big organisation but I know that all LC forum members, for example, do not have their trees posted there.

 

[Tim]

Maybe Peter's piece in the NL about the person with 6 entries will prompt people to get some ancestors entered.

We can certainly hope so, Peter if you were to mention how many entries the top person has made then this might spur people on who are just starting their journey?

Not always known for their accuracy although can be useful sometimes.

Well I have to say that so far I have found them to be surprisingly accurate. However I'm firmly convinced that they are produced from what other users have entered in their trees. So be wary. But it does allow you to check out for yourself what other people have found. And then I add the proper sources and add them to Lost Cousins.

 

[Heather]

He prefers to use Ancestry Hints. I am not familiar with them so cannot comment but am disappointed.

The Ancestry hints are leaves that appear next to names on your tree on Ancestry, even if it is a private tree as mine is. Clicking on a leaf brings up information from other sources that is almost the same or similar to the information that is already on your tree. You can choose to add the information to your records or ignore it. I have to admit that most of the time I "ignore" the hints, as I like to think that I have researched my tree as carefully as I could, but now and again it is possible to gain some information, this does not happen very often, to me anyway. If anything does appear that I have not seen before, I always check it out myself before adding it to my tree.

 

[Alexander Bisset]

Ancestry hints run the risk (discussed elsewhere) of linking you up with a record for someone of a similar name and age who isn't your relative. I love following them up, but discard a significant proportion. Shared cousins on LC will only get a match if both descendants feel that the ancestors listed are related to them, which probably means that spouse/child/parent tallies with earlier or later censuses, etc.

Not quite the Lost Cousins matching is based on the fact that you are entering the page reference for the census. As I understand it if two people enter the name of a person on the same page then they are matching the same person. There is no need to consider whether the people involved feel there is a relation if its a match for the people on the page its a match. Whether they are then interested in the match is of course a different question. Especially as some people have entered servants/boarders/visitors etc.

 

[Red Dragon]

Hi Everyone!

Here's a weekly update on how well people have been doing over at LostCousins.

• 275 new members joined the LostCousins site
• 15,772 new entries have been added and
• 778 relatives have been matched.

What an amazing week! All 3 figures up; New Members and New Entries are their highest values since records began. And what a value! 15,772 new entries! Maybe Peter's article in the Feb 14th Newsletter is starting to pay dividends.

Well done everybody, and remember, the more we add the more we match!

Here's a graph showing the activity over at the Lost Cousins site.

 

[peter]

Thanks, Red - thought you'd forgotten about us this week. Or did it take you longer to add up those big numbers.....?

 

[Red Dragon]

Hi Everyone!

Thanks, Red - thought you'd forgotten about us this week. Or did it take you longer to add up those big numbers.....?

Sorry Peter, it was the Boss's birthday so I had to take her out!

Here's a weekly update on how well people have been doing over at LostCousins.

• 54 new members joined the LostCousins site
• 6,109 new entries have been added and
• 346 relatives have been matched.

Although the figures are down on last week, hardly surprising as that was an awesome week, the figures are all still pretty good, giving us a match ratio of 1 in 18.

Well done everybody, and remember, the more we add the more we match!

Here's a graph showing the activity over at the Lost Cousins site.

 

[Red Dragon]

Hi Everyone!

Here's a weekly update on how well people have been doing over at LostCousins.

• 51 new members joined the LostCousins site
• 4,125 new entries have been added and
• 128 relatives have been matched.

Bit of a slow week, but even in a slow week members have still managed to add 4,125 people and made 128 matches. We need to encourage those who have not started entering their ancestors yet to add them, and then we'll all benefit from extra matches.

So keep at it, we are getting there!

Here's a graph showing the activity over at the Lost Cousins site.

 

[Red Dragon]

Hi Everyone!

Here's a weekly update on how well people have been doing over at LostCousins.

• 48 new members joined the LostCousins site
• 3,763 new entries have been added and
• 280 relatives have been matched.

So while some members are off in the sun, (and no blogs being posted, what are they up to!) it looks like some members are still hard at it, 280 matches which gives a ration of a match in every 13 people entered.

Good luck everyone and well done!

Here's a graph showing the activity over at the Lost Cousins site.

 

[peter]

Maybe the wifi wasn't as promised and they have been internet deprived.

There have been lots of tweets....

 

[Johnhanson]

Hi Everyone!

Here's a weekly update on how well people have been doing over at LostCousins.

• 48 new members joined the LostCousins site
• 3,763 new entries have been added and
• 280 relatives have been matched.

So while some members are off in the sun, (and no blogs being posted, what are they up to!) it looks like some members are still hard at it, 280 matches which gives a ration of a match in every 13 people entered.


Good luck everyone and well done!

Here's a graph showing the activity over at the Lost Cousins site.
View attachment 430

Red
You obviously don't follow Chris Paton's Blog or him on twitter
He reported daily on the conference and it was certainly more enjoyable than the rain here at the minute

A pity that we can't make it all year long in Portugal <G>